Apple Inc. Is So Mean
Apple Inc. is so mean; Apple Inc. is self-important; Apple Inc. thinks its customers are stupid. How can I say such things about the company who brought the world the iPod and the iMac? Easily, because Apple Inc. opposes an NYC-based non-profit organization’s usage of an apple in its logo.
![[Image: Apple Inc. logo GreeNYC logo comparison]](http://www.callistonian.net/ima/blogged/applelogos.jpg "Apple Inc. logo GreeNYC logo comparison")
As you can see, the GreeNYC logo (right) looks nothing like Apple Inc.’s logo (left). Regardless, Apple drew up a fancy Consolidated Notice of Opposition and whined about GreeNYC. “[Their logo] so closely resembles [ours] that [their mark] is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception in the minds of consumers.”1 STFU. No, it’s not! The marks look nothing alike! They’re different colors! Please, get over yourself! Your intellectual property rights do not include the right to ban others from drawing apples! You pompous lawyers need to take your bums back to law school! Also, invest in a conscience! =P
Since Apple is up in arms about its precious intellectual property, I thought that I should warn everyone about some of their IP policies.2 If you don’t follow these rules, you may find your inbox full of nasty threats from dearest Apple.
You may not use or imitate an Apple slogan or tagline. For example: “Think different.”
Don’t use those two words together. Well, to be safe—we see how far they’re taking this apple picture thing—don’t use the words think or different, at all. Don’t even hint at being innovative.
As adjectives, trademarks may not be used in the plural or possessive form. Correct: I bought two Macintosh computers. Not Correct: I bought two Macintoshes.
What about, “I bought an Apple!”? Oh wait—no, that’s not allowed. See:
Trademarks are adjectives used to modify nouns; the noun is the generic name of a product or service.
Even if you wish to sell apple trees under the name Appletree, you’d best forget it. They’ll engage in battle with your lawyers if you use an apple as your logo, or if you for register weonlysellappletrees.com. With no logo and no website, you’d have no hope. :(
You may not use an image of a real apple or other variation of the Apple logo for any purpose. Third parties cannot use a variation, phonetic equivalent, foreign language equivalent, takeoff, or abbreviation of an Apple trademark for any purpose. For example: Not acceptable: Appletree Jackintosh Apple Cart PodMart
Look! Appletree is listed as something that cannot be used for any purpose.
In conclusion, because I’m feeling rather anti-Apple, look at this iPhone-killer, the CYON Viewty. It’s the most beautiful phone I’ve ever seen. Min Hyorin even made a music video for it. The video is sweet.
1 Apple’s Notice of Opposition
2 Apple’s Copyright and Trademark Guidelines
I just remembered that in Finland there’s a hotel chain called Omena (apple) and shopping center called Iso Omena (Big Apple) :P
I personally love apples, but I hate Apple.
Just another reason to add to my list of “Why Apple Sucks”
That said, I am sure there are other companies who protect their trademarks equally ferociously? I’m sure you’re not supposed to say “photoshopped” for instance.
Apple are notorious for being douche bags. This really doesn’t surprise me.
I believe that a company has to protect their brand – obviously Apple think the same way and some. The above logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. It’s a flat colour, made up of a swirl, different colour and even the damn leaf is facing the opposite direction.
It makes it ten times worst that they are doing this to a non-profit organisation. Talk about the stereotypical big bad evil corporation!
Hanna, Apple lawyers haven’t quite slimed their way into Finland, yet. But I bet they’ll be willing to take anyone to task for create Apple-anything in the future. Watch out.
Jem, companies are kind-of supposed to protect their trademarks ferociously. ;) So most have written guidelines similar to Apple’s, but I decided to pick on Apple, because of its desire to create needless litigation.
Lil, I’m all for protecting brands too – but sometimes a company just goes too far. At this point, I think it’s fair to say that Apple is just trying to stop others from putting any sort of depiction of an apple in their logos at all. I think that’s ridiculous. It’s Apple fault for coming up with such a generic name and logo, anyway.
What the…? So now basically we can’t refer to that red fruit by its original name?! Well I prefer sour cherries and bananas to it anyway =P
But those two images look absolutely nothing alike.
Hmm over here in Australia, trademark only protects the product that you’re trademarked for (for Apple it would be electronic appliances or something like that). That’s why if there’s a restaurant that wants to call itself “Apple” it should very well be entitled too. That’s why there’s no problem with there existing “Dove” soaps and moisturisers and “Dove” chocolate as consumers would not link the two products as being from the same company.
Of course there are grey areas; e.g. there was a case where Nike won when they sued another company that had released a brand of men’s sports deodorant called Nike, as the judges say that consumers could likely be confused by the two products as originating from the same company. However, in this case, I’m going to bet on Apple not winning because people wouldn’t likely confuse a giant electronic corporation with a non-profit green organisation. I hope GreeNYC doesn’t back down and actually have to means to take Apple to court, because if it was tried here then there’s a very good chance that GreeNYC would win.
Belinda, it’s the same in the US. We have Dove soap and chocolate too. That’s part of what makes this so stupid. Apple just has a crapload of products, so they try to get at everyone who uses “Apple” for anything.
GreeNYC hasn’t actually trademarked its logo, yet. Apple’s trying to stop it. No one’s sued anybody yet… :) To be honest, this feels more like Apple vs. New York City (not GreeNYC), which is another thing that makes this so stupid… It’s such bad PR for Apple and NYC has such a “Don’t F with us” attitude… The city will absolutely put up a fight.
I love Apple so I’m going to go ahead and disagree with everyone and say that the logo is kinda similar to the Apple logo. :p I mean, they obviously aren’t identical but for somebody who isn’t really familiar with the Apple logo and what it looks like, there’s no saying that they won’t get confused. What’s more well known… Apple or GreenNYC? If someone sees something resembling an apple, they might just go ahead and assume it belongs to Apple. Am I making sense? No? Oh well… I still love Apple. :P
Apple’s just ridiculous… are they no companies that used the word apple before them?
Iphone’s stupid too, the first batch of iphones came out without telephone functions because they forgot .. so people can’t actually make calls with i PHONES… that was how ipod touch was born.
Next they’ll be kidnapping Gwenyth Paltrow’s daughter, and charging Chris Martin with copyright infringement. *sigh*
Wasn’t New York called “The Big Apple,” BEFORE Apple computers were around?
I like my iPod, but I’m beginning to re-think my next laptop choice. If they’re going to be such pompous asses, so will I!
Of course :P But that doesn’t mean it’s logical, as your post highlights. I mean, any idiot knows Apple computers would not be the same as a company called “Appletree” selling/planting Apple trees for example.
The stupid thing of course is that Apple were recently involved in another dispute, were they not? Because they were overstepping their “boundaries” with iTunes and some other company in music named something to do with apples? I don’t recall what the conclusion to that was but it reeks of hypocrisy.
You might want to consider something here – what would happen if Apple *didn’t* send that letter.
Apple was granted this trademark and is therefore charged with protecting it. They can’t simply turn their head in this instance and set a precedent.
Coke and Kleenex have similar trademarks for their company name. Nike has one for their “swoosh”.
While I agree that the two logos look different, there’s also enough similarities to warrant a letter of infringement. JMHO.
Apple (Computer) has the highest brand name recognition in the world and is highly respected. And as such they are not about to have it diluted, especially by the likes of some government entity, like NYC. Brand name dilution (along with accompanying trademarks and logos) is not something to be taken very lightly, and especially by the most respected and highly recognized brand name in the world. It is only idiots who think that such a company is not bound to defend its trademarks and logos. They are duty-bound to defend it on behalf of all the shareholders who have put their money into the company plus all the purchasers of their products (who also depend upon that brand-name recognition along with the highly-valuable products produced by the company).
It’s clear that many who has responded here have no concept of how a highly-successful company like Apple (Computer) must defend its product and name recognition (in being the most highly recognized and respected brand name in the world) from interlopers (like NYC) who would like to ride on the back of such a successful company in promoting their schemes.
There is something all you haters do not understand. Every company is obligated to vigorously defend their trademarks by law. It is an automatic thing for Trademark suites to be implimented in cases like this. It happens all the time with every big company but you just do not hear about it like this. The reason you are hearing about this case is because it is Apple and it is NYC. Apple is not being mean.
I hate to break it to you, but those are the terms that ALL TRADEMARKS are subjected to. Apple has a harder time simply because their trademarks are common words. If you’ve looked, its not ferociously defended as you may think, they’re just covering their asses.
Haven’t you noticed a slew of shoddy products trying to hop on the iPod/iMac bandwagon? Has every single one of them been dragged out and beaten by Apple Law Goons? No. Plus, I have actually met people who think those are ACTUAL APPLE PRODUCTS*. So if said scalper made a crappy product and slapped a lowercase “i” in front of it or some Mac lingo, then said stupid people bought it and were dissatisfied… this damages their reputation as a business. Therefore, they have these policies so that if they want to stop crappy developer from pretending to be affiliated with them they can go “Yes, see, we outlined it right here. GTFO.”.
*Yea, you’re giving people WAY too much credit. Do you know how much we have to dumb things down in information and branding design? It’d blow your mind.
So yea, their trademark policies don’t make them wankers, its common practice when it comes to dealing with trademarks in general. However, this logo debate does make me go WTF. Especially since the same thing pretty much happened between Apple Records and Apple Inc, years ago (like before I was born). IMHO, I think if the charity removed the leaf, then it would be fine.
DaveD, if Apple didn’t send that letter, then they wouldn’t have a bunch of bad PR right now. I realize that they must protect their trademark. As I said flippantly, “companies are kind-of supposed to protect their trademarks ferociously.” However, IP litigation has gotten out of hand. Apples are generic things. The Big Apple existed before Apple Inc. If a company wants to go nuts about enforcing its trademark and lock out all others from making vaguely similar designs, it shouldn’t use a generic symbol (end of story). I thought that half of the purpose of creating IP laws in the US was to encourage creativity. Not allowing GreeNYC to use its logo has nothing to do with encouraging the arts and creativity.
Besides, the logos are substantially different. GreeNYC is an environmental thing; Apple is primarily an electronics company.
Eliakim, Apple does not have the highest brand recognition in the world. Read their Notice of Opposition – they mention it there, but it’s not the highest. I know that companies must protect their trademarks… but, again, when companies with really generic logos start going after non-profits with substantially different looking logos, it’s getting out of hand.
Jacky, Apple absolutely should have a harder time because its trademarks are common words. Also, going after people who slap i on the front of their electronics in hopes of looking like Apple is NOT at all similar to going after a non-profit environmental organization (from the Big Apple) simply because it has an apple in its logo. The GreeNYC logo is not going on electronics; it’s not going on the backs of computers. It’s going on things like green replacement shopping bags.
Having used both the iPhone and the Viewty, I can honestly say… Viewty > iPhone.
There’s nothing like a negative post on Apple to bring the fanboys out of the works. What is it about mac users that makes them unable to accept criticism of their favourite brand? What is it about them that forces them to make derogatory remarks about others that don’t share their opinion (“idiots”, “haters”, etc)? I love me a good argument but I do at least try and ensure I’ve been down every avenue before resorting to what is nowt more than trolling.
To clarify my earlier viewpoint: I don’t think that companies should just lie down and let people ride roughshod over their trademarks and protected branding. I don’t think that people should be allowed to rape someone’s right to protect their intellectual property. I do however think that if a company is going to choose such a generic object or word to market their company, they can expect both existing and future companies to push the boundaries of trademark/copyright law when it comes to similar designs or names.
If this was a computer start-up pushing its own model of personal computer, or someone trying to sell their version of an operating system or maybe even an “iProduct” I’d understand, but the fact is it’s a non-profit organisation trying to do good, not even remotely connected to the type of business Apple deals with.
I doubt it – I work for a marketing firm and we do branding design all the time. Idiots are idiots, you get them in all walks of life. The fact that there are some who don’t understand basic logos/etc is natural, I’m sure.
How about we make hybrid Real Life apple trees without leaves too, just so as not to cause upset?
It’s a farce.
I saw on another site where they took the NYC logo, mirrored it left for right and overlayed it on the Apple logo. It was a very close fit. Clearly the NYC people used the Apple logo as a starting point for their design. In addition to the overall outline, look how the rightward slanted stem is at about the same angle as the leaf in the Apple logo. Also, the NYC logo has a detached leaf like the Apple logo. For an example of a company with an apple in the name and logo that does not infringe look at Apple Vacations.
http://www.applevacations.com/avok
John, it’s interesting that someone overlayed the GreeNYC logo on the Apple logo. But – they’re both silhouettes of apples. They’re going to have similar proportions; they’re going to be similar a shape. If I thought to draw an apple, I’d draw a little leaf too. In simplistic drawings like this, stems and leaves are what distinguish apples from oranges.
Look at the angle of the stem? How would you prefer the stem to be angled, straight up? Should it lie flat against the apple? Those are the only alternatives.
It’s ridiculous to say that GreeNYC “clearly” used Apple Inc.’s logo as a starting point for their design. There’s no evidence to support that claim and there are only so many ways to draw an apple silhouette…
If one asked a class of children to draw apples, I’m sure that most creations would resemble one another as all the children would be drawing the same thing, an apple. Similarities in cases like this don’t equate to someone “clearly” copying someone else.
The Apple Vacation logo is alright, but it can’t really be described as a picture of an apple as the words “Apple Vacation” are attached to the fruit…
People act as though Apple Inc. invented the fruit, the apple. It didn’t and thus, there’s no good reason supporting why Apple Inc. should be granted the right to ban other organizations, especially non-profit environmental organizations, from using an apple in their logos. An apple is a generic item: it’s not fanciful; it’s not creative.
Wow, way to sneak a personal opinion in. -_- Reaaal subtle.
No one is saying that Apple don’t have the right to sue. Of course they do and they are. What people have a problem with, is that they are flexing their corporate muscles in a situation that doesn’t warrant it. I really doubt NYC thought “hmm out of all the common corporate logos out there, I’ll pick Apple to plagiarise!”. It’ll make more sense that they were thinking along the lines of, “apples are nice, natural fruits that would make a snazzy logo for our environmental campaign”. The fruit, apples, actually existed before the Apple products and Apple lawyers should know that they don’t own the concept of “apples” outside the class of their trademark. Knowing this and still insisting on being litigious is just a stupid move on Apple’s part.
Well, when you put them side by side they do look alike, they are both apples (duh)! But in the logo context, the green apple doesn’t remind me anything of Apple (the company). It’s stupid to try and sue just because someone used the same object as you for a logo. If apples were rare, or preferably, invented by Apple co. themselves, then it’d be OK. But wanting to claim a fruit as yours and only yours is STUPID.
That’s pretty extreme… the Apple logo is recognized world wide, I doubt a green apple design would get in the way.
I’ve loved the Beatles for 44 years. Albums; 45s; books; magazines; tapes; CDs; anthologies. Got a lot of it. Probably a fanBOI.
But, explain to me, the 29 year suing-fest from Apple Records against Apple Computers. Should have [the late] Neil Aspinall upheld his fiduciary DUTY to protect ‘Records’ trademark? Yes. Is obstructing ‘Computers’ business helpful. Mmmm, not so much. (Ever here of an Apple][GS? Well, Neil effectively murdered the profitable Apple ][ line of computers)
Some of you will claim 'Record's has every right to protect its trademark from interlopers like 'Computers' — even tho' their logos have NEVER looked alike. And, 'Records' has historically sold music media, while 'Computers' has sold — well computers. And of course, lately — computer audio files.
"Oh, but!", you'll say. 'Computers' agreed to 'Records' demands in the '80's. Yes, they did. 'Computers' also agreed to many of Microsoft's demands in the '80's. (Look where that got them.)
BTW, if you had a company, would you have acquiesced to such demands? Can't put a tiny speaker in your computer; can't use a synth chip in your computer; can't use a system sound in your computer; can't sell audio files to your computer.
This is not the same as Microsoft suing operating system software company, 'Lindows'. I mean Jeez, how could Lindows OS be confused with Windows OS? (Sarcasm) BTW, should Bridgestone sue General Mills over Cheerios?
FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
Short of your OPINION, explain why 'Records' is within their rights to sue 'Inc.', [nee 'Computer, Inc.'] — holding a logo and business which are clearly NOT similar — as to protect their brand, while ‘Inc.’ are characterized — by you, and many others — as ‘Meanies’.
Humour me. Just say you were, an AppleHater — would you be making a donation to the non-profit org, GreeNYC — not knowing precisely whether or not they are affiliated with Apple, Inc.? Could the logo confuse folks? What if GreeNYC sued ‘Computers’, because they weren’t getting donations?
FYI, if Apple or MS DON’T sue EVERY single time. Then, the first time a trademark is obviously copied, they WON’T be able to sue. The latest guy will shout, “that the first didn’t get sued, so why single me out”.
And they’ll be correct.
Wow…it’s like they think that they created apples or something :P. I never knew Apple was this uptight!
Dear Apple,
The whole world doesn’t revolve around you!
Yara
How do they like them apples ;)?
I guess fame just went to their heads. :)
A side-by-side comparison is not the proper test in determining the similarity of the marks. It may be counterintuitive for many people, but I think that NYC & Company’s registration could be refused, even if the GreeNYC logo looks nothing like Apple Inc.’s logo. Let’s look at this case found at TTABVUE, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (opposer) v. Dakota Motorcycles USA Inc. (applicant)
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91162109-OPP-22.pdf
Honda Motor has opposed registration of Dakota Motorcycles’s mark on the ground that their logo is too similar in appearance and thus likely to cause confusion. Let me quote a few passages:
“The test, under the first du Pont factor, is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to result. The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than a specific impression of trademarks.” (page 7)
“Although a side-by-side comparison is not the proper test in determining the similarity of the marks, we set them forth below for ease of reference and discussion. […] In terms of appearance, we find that the marks obviously are dissimilar. […] However, we find that there is a high degree of similarity between the design elements of the respective marks. […] Although the respective Viking figures face different ways, and although the Viking in applicant’s mark clearly is male while the Viking in opposer’s mark appears to be female, those points of dissimilarity are outweighed, in our analysis, by the fact that both figures essentially would be perceived as being Vikings. […] In sum, we find that although the marks are not identical in terms of appearance, they are quite similar in appearance when viewed in their entireties.” (p. 8-9)
“Considering and balancing all of the evidence of record as it pertains to the relevant du Pont factors, and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark as applied to motorcycles and opposer’s registered design mark as applied to motorcycles. The fact that the goods are likely to be purchased with a degree of care does not suffice to overcome the likelihood of confusion arising from the similarity of the marks, the identical nature of the goods, trade channels and purchasers, and the strength of opposer’s mark.” (p. 10-11)
“In summary, we find that opposer has established its standing to oppose and its Section 2(d) ground of opposition. Decision: The opposition is sustained.” (p. 11)
Of course the marks are both applied to motorcycles, Apple’s case is different because NYC & Company is not selling computers, nor phones, music players, etc. But certain of the goods identified in NYC & Company’s application are identical to the goods identified in Apple’s registration 1,401,237 from July 15,1986. Class 21: mugs, dishes, drinking glasses, beer steins and wine glass. (Apple opposition, page 4)
http://www.wired.com/images/pdf/apple_opposition.pdf
Apple is also claiming that registration of Applicant’s marks is likely to cause dilution of the distinctiveness of Apple’s marks. This is important, as Apple is one of the most valuable brands in the world. In its Notice of Opposition, the company has gone to great length to establish that. Why? Well, according to the International Trademark Association:
“In an infringement action, famous marks are often accorded a broader scope of protection, which means that infringement may be easier to establish. Also, in many jurisdictions famous marks are protected against even non-competing, unrelated uses without the need to prove likelihood of confusion, on the basis that such use dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous mark.”
http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1721
According to cyber.law.harvard.edu: “In addition to bringing an action for infringement, owners of trademarks can also bring an action for trademark dilution under either federal or state law. Under federal law, a dilution claim can be brought only if the mark is “famous.”. […] Once the prerequisites for a dilution claim are satisfied, the owner of a mark can bring an action against any use of that mark that dilutes the distinctive quality of that mark, either through “blurring” or “tarnishment” of that mark; unlike an infringement claim, likelihood of confusion is not necessary. Blurring occurs when the power of the mark is weakened through its identification with dissimilar goods. For example, Kodak brand bicycles or Xerox brand cigarettes. Although neither example is likely to cause confusion among consumers, each dilutes the distinctive quality of the mark. Tarnishment occurs when the mark is cast in an unflattering light, typically through its association with inferior or unseemly products or services. So, for example, in a recent case, ToysRUs successfully brought a tarnishment claim against adultsrus.com, a pornographic web-site. Toys “R” Us v. Akkaoui, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1836 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 1996).”
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#8
A broader scope of protection? No need to prove likelihood of confusion? I have good reasons to think that opposition will be sustained.
And the fact it’s a green campaign and a non-profit organisation trying to do good is pretty much irrelevant. Besides, the New York city council is protecting its trademarks too. The following article is from last November, this is the exact same thing.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22736653-2,00.html
“New York has taken the first step towards dragging Brisbane City Council through the courts for ripping off its “I love NY” logo. […] The city [Brisbane] argues the logo is being used to inspire those in Brisbane to go green, and not as a tourism promotion. […] But New York argues it is irrelevant how Brisbane uses the logo because it is a clear breach of its trademark.”
Oh my dear God, New York City is, like, teh EVIIIIL!!!11
I kid, I kid… :D
“And the fact it’s a green campaign and a non-profit organisation trying to do good is pretty much irrelevant.”
No, it’s not irrelevant. GreeNYC being an environmental organization matters because Apple and GreeNYC are targeting difference audiences. Apple = mainly electronics; GreeNYC = the environment. This is definitely worth mentioning because different markets = less likelihood of the two being confused and less likelihood of dilution.
Again, an apple is a generic thing. It’s not original; it lacks creativity. Thus, it doesn’t deserve the same amount of protection as fancifully named brands and fanciful logos do. Unoriginally titled Apple Inc. can’t be compared to Kodak or Xerox. I don’t associate “Kodak” or “Xerox” with anything as those terms don’t describe generic things… but, an apple? That’s a fruit.
The New York city council is not GreeNYC… Its actions have little to do with what the discussion at hand.
Apple is still teh EVILLL!!!11!
I jest too and yeah, I still have an iPod. XD
Apple, Inc [nee, Apple Computers, Inc] being a computer company, and Apple Records being a music media company matters — because each are targeting difference audiences.
So, the ‘debate’ is over then?
Yep. It’s over, I guess. :)
Too bad.
I was hoping that someone was willing to challenge my first post.
Oh, well, I understand.
I saw http://www.callistonian.net/2008/04/apple-inc-is-so-mean/ and wanted to mention a useful site: http://www.FreePatentsOnline.com
It provides free patent searching, free PDF downloading, allows annoting documents and sharing them, and free alerts for new documents.
If you have a spot, a link to let your users know abou the site would be great.